Catholics don't believe in certain Bible things?

[MontChevalier]

I’ve been looking more and more into Catholicism, and there have been some things I’ve liked and other things which make me nervous.

One thing in particular is the idea that some Catholics believe that the Bible is an allegorical work, not necessarily something that happened in real life. Is this true?

And another thing that bothers me is that some Catholics also believe Christ won’t return, is this also true? Does this mean that in the time of the Book of Apocalips, we won’t be taken by Christ up into a cloud? Will Revelations ever occur at all?

It’s all quite confusing and I need some help trying to learn more.

Thank you all for your time.
God bless
-MontChevalier

 

[jmcrae]

I’ve been looking more and more into Catholicism, and there have been some things I’ve liked and other things which make me nervous.

One thing in particular is the idea that some Catholics believe that the Bible is an allegorical work, not necessarily something that happened in real life. Is this true?

Not at all - that actually sounds more like some of the more liberal forms of Protestantism.

In the Catholic faith, we recognize a variety of writing styles in the Bible. Those that present themselves as historical are, in fact, historical events - Abraham’s covenant with God, Moses bringing the Ten Commandments, the teachings of Jesus, and His crucifixion and resurrection, along with many other things.

Some things are written in an allegorical form in the Bible, and are therefore obviously intended as allegories - which does not make them unimportant to our faith, nor does it make them “not true” - it just means that we need to look beyond the surface for the real meaning behind these things. For example, the story of Adam and Eve in the garden is an allegorical story that tells us something true - which is that our first parents, Adam and Eve (who were real people, and really the ancestors of every human being who has ever lived) did something terrible that brought evil and death into the world Whatever that thing was that they did has been lost to history, so our ancestors in faith created an allegorical story that presents the essential points - that we are created to be obedient to God; that Adam and Eve failed to obey, and that death has come about as a consequence of that.

And another thing that bothers me is that some Catholics also believe Christ won’t return, is this also true?

Certainly not. In our Creed, we state very plainly, “He will come again to judge the living and the dead.” It is also very clear in the Scriptures that the Church is here to prepare the people of the world for His Second Coming, by continuing to teach what He taught, and by giving them the Sacraments of His Grace.

Whether or not we will go flying around on clouds is a matter for speculation, but certainly, Jesus is coming again, and those who are found worthy will go with Him into Heaven, while the remainder will go to Hell.

 

[Skeptic92]

I’ve been looking more and more into Catholicism, and there have been some things I’ve liked and other things which make me nervous.

One thing in particular is the idea that some Catholics believe that the Bible is an allegorical work, not necessarily something that happened in real life. Is this true?

Parts of the Bible are, parts of Genesis, the Psalms, Proverbs, Apocalypse and other books, however there are parts of the Bible that are definitely historical, Parts of Genesis, Exodus, Judges, Kings, most of the NT etc, you wouldnt walk into a Library and read every book as a book of history and science, so why would you read all 72 books of the Bible as literal? different books means there will be different genres of literature.

And another thing that bothers me is that some Catholics also believe Christ won’t return, is this also true? Does this mean that in the time of the Book of Apocalips, we won’t be taken by Christ up into a cloud? Will Revelations ever occur at all?

It’s all quite confusing and I need some help trying to learn more.

Thank you all for your time.
God bless
-MontChevalier

Apocalypse is a peice of Apocryphal literature, not prophecy, be careful how you interpret Apocalypse (or Revelation, depends which Bible you use on it’s title), however do you remember the mystery of faith, option 1 after the consecration :

Christ has Died
Christ is Risen
Christ will come Again

and the Creed

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end

we definitely believe in the second coming of Christ, but noone knows the hour day month or year, other then the Father, or exactly how the second coming will occur, just that it will, remember the Rapture is a modern idea, not anything to do with any actual Christian tradition.

 

[Big_Ro]

I think it’s important that you understand that you may be laboring under a pre-millenial interpretation of Revelation. I think you need to disabuse yourself of those beliefs and then a lot of your concerns regarding the return of Christ will go away.

As far as scripture goes, we look to the written word, the traditions of the Church as handed down to us by the apostles, and the teachings of the Church established by Christ himself through Peter. This is why our Faith has a deeper, richer, and more accurate, IMHO, understanding of Christ.

 

[Robert_Burns]

I’ve been looking more and more into Catholicism, and there have been some things I’ve liked and other things which make me nervous.

One thing in particular is the idea that some Catholics believe that the Bible is an allegorical work, not necessarily something that happened in real life. Is this true?

And another thing that bothers me is that some Catholics also believe Christ won’t return, is this also true? Does this mean that in the time of the Book of Apocalips, we won’t be taken by Christ up into a cloud? Will Revelations ever occur at all?

It’s all quite confusing and I need some help trying to learn more.

Thank you all for your time.
God bless
-MontChevalier

None of what you say is true. I get worried more about some of the ridiculous things Protestants believe - like some feel Mary had more children - some feel John Chapter 6 is allegory when Jesus spoke openly about his Body and Blood being Meat and Drink indeed. The fact is - Protestants would not have the bible were it not for the Catholic Church which remains to this day the only TRUE Authority on what the Bible says.

The Catholic Church was over three hundred years old by the time the New Testament was put under one cover under Pope St Damasus. The protestant churchs would not exist for another 1200 years.

So if you are looking into Catholicism - Know this - Jesus formed one Church not hundreds and only ONE Church can possibly be that Church historically speaking.

The Catholic Church

 

[manualman]

I’ve been looking more and more into Catholicism, and there have been some things I’ve liked and other things which make me nervous.

1. One thing in particular is the idea that some Catholics believe that the Bible is an allegorical work, not necessarily something that happened in real life. Is this true?
2. And another thing that bothers me is that some Catholics also believe Christ won’t return, is this also true? Does this mean that in the time of the Book of Apocalips, we won’t be taken by Christ up into a cloud? Will Revelations ever occur at all?

It’s all quite confusing and I need some help trying to learn more.

Thank you all for your time.
God bless
-MontChevalier

I suggest you Google the “reverend know it all” for some excellent responses to these kinds of questions. I steal from him a lot.

1. Catholicism absolutely believes in the Truth of Scripture and that the things described within really did occur and are described “From God’s perspective.” By that, I mean that God is not a CNN reporter, nor are the Scriptures intended to be a biology or physics textbook. They are intended to be the love story about how God loves man, man screws up and God refuses to give up on him. The point of Genesis 1 is NOT to give man a headstart on the graspng precise scientific processes God used to create the earth, but to introduce man to his place in the universe, his origin and purpose. The point of the Genesis flood narratives are NOT to suggest to man what dimensions constitute the most stable and seaworthy ship (I’ve actually heard protestants argue this), nor to quibble over whether every single square foot of land was covered by floods, but to convey the reality that God utterly destroyed man’s civilization due to his sins and started over with Noah’s family (and even that didn’t prevent the return of sin and corruption). In catholicism, Scripture is Truth and reality is NEVER in conflict with the true meaning of Scripture. Nobody REALLY argues that King Soloman had a lover with a “neck like an ivory tower” or “breasts like twin gazelle” (freak show!). So why do some people get so hung up on the literal idea of a 7, 24 hour creation period when the point is clearly to use the number 7 to emphasize God’s authorship? Protestants get tripped up on this because their belief system doesn’t identify any authority to clarify what is poetic description and what that descriptions really means. Many protestants believe that if they give up belief in a 7, 24 hour period creation that it calls into question the veracity of the Resurrection. IMO, it does not any more than would questioning how Soloman got so besotted with such a horrifically physically deformed woman!
2. Where’d you get the idea the catholics don’t believe in the second coming? That’s bedrock. Catholics just don’t believe in the modern protestant notion of the Rapture as portrayed in those silly “Left Behind” books. Somewhere on Catholic Answers you can find an article on “Premillenialism” which is the ‘left behind’ notion that NOBODY believed until just a couple hundred years ago.

 

[PJM]

=MontChevalier;7562241]I’ve been looking more and more into Catholicism, and there have been some things I’ve liked and other things which make me nervous.

One thing in particular is the idea that some Catholics believe that the Bible is an allegorical work, not necessarily something that happened in real life. Is this true?

And another thing that bothers me is that some Catholics also believe Christ won’t return, is this also true? Does this mean that in the time of the Book of Apocalips, we won’t be taken by Christ up into a cloud? Will Revelations ever occur at all?

It’s all quite confusing and I need some help trying to learn more.

Thank you all for your time.
God bless
-MontChevalier

The following is taken from : www. AgapeBibleStudy.com

This is an EXCELLENT, Obedient to the Magisterium, and In Depth Catholic Bible study… which can be done 'on-line."PJM

The Literal versus the Literalist Interpretation of Scripture

"The “literal” interpretation of any text is the meaning the writer intends to convey to the reader and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words, In the Biblical text Catholics seek the literal meaning of a passage as it was intended to be revealed by the Holy Spirit to the inspired writer and through the inspired writer to the reader. This is not to be confused with the “literalist” interpretation of a text in which only the meaning of the individual words are considered and not the intent of the writer in conveying the meaning of the passage as a whole. For example, In the Gospel of John 6:32-71, known as “The Bread of Life Discourse” Jesus literally tells the crowd [and us] that in order to have eternal life one must literally eat His Body and drink His Blood. In accepting Jesus’ words as literal, the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist! However, in **Matthew 5:30 **Jesus’ tells the crowd, And if your right hand should be your downfall, cut it off and throw it away… The literalist interpretation of these words would suggest if one did not like one’s right hand it should be surgically removed, but this is not the meaning Jesus intended to convey. He is using hyperbole in **Matthew 5:27-30 **to drive home the concept that nothing worldly is worth compromising our eternal salvation and that one must fight to remain focused on staying on course toward our final goal of heaven without making any concessions and by being ready to sacrifice anything which could put one in the path of offending God and risking the gift of salvation. In searching for what the inspired writer meant to convey, it is necessary to be aware of the different senses of Sacred Scripture

The spiritual sense of Scripture:

Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs [Catechism of the Catholic Church # 117]. The spiritual sense of Scripture is divided into 3 senses: the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses.

The allegorical sense allows us to discover a more profound understanding of the events of salvation history by recognizing their significance in the revelation of Jesus Christ. In this sense the great flood in Noah’s time in which the earth was cleansed of sin becomes a prefigurement of Christian baptism (1 Corinthians 10:1-3) while in Abraham’s offering up of his son Isaac as a sacrifice, Isaac becomes a “type” of Christ (Hebrews 11:17-19; 1 Corinthians 10:6-7, 11).

**The moral sense of Scripture **allows us to look at examples of events in Scripture to lead us to see the deadly results of sin as well as the blessings that come from righteous living and submission to God’s authority.

**The anagogical sense or eschatological **sense of Scripture allows us to view events in Scripture in terms of their impact upon final judgment and eternity.

The CC assembled and collected the books of the OT
The CC NT was completely written by men know to be Catholics
The CC was responsible for the 73 BOOK Canon of th Bible
The CC therefore is the “Bible Church” par exellance
The CC gave to the world the Bible
The CC is the ONLY Church / Faith that OTH the Holy Spirit and Jesus Himself have COMMITED themdelves to insure that ALWAYS truthful Teaching on ALL matters of Faith and Moral for all TIME! **[Jn.14:16-17; Jn.17:15-19]. **

A Catholic perspective on the Bibles is that the OT is primarily historical and Prophetical and LEADS to the NT.

The NT fulfills, and perfects the OT. A GREAT many mandates of Christ; forgivenes of sin, Eucharist, the role of priest, personal relationship with God are but some of the things fulfiled and perfected by a Perfect God; Jesus Christ.

So the Bible is COMPLETELY TRUE, and no one part can cantradict another part of it. BUT the Bible is NOT always FACTUAL. WHAT?

The Bible while relating achient history is NOT a History book. Much of the history was passed on by word-of-mouth and stories, so historical errors are possible. At times Jesus uses stories to make a moral point, and at times Jesus Exagerated in the extreme to make a moral point. These are TOOLS, NOT untruths. But behind the history, behind the stories, behind the exagerations lie IMPORTANT MORAL MESSAGES. These are always TRUE.

Catholic Beleive what the Bible teaches. Christ WILL COME AGAIN; BUT there are ONLY TWO Commings [One was His Birth], the other at the end of TIME. NOT THREE, which is not a Biblical Teaching.

Hope you find this helpful?

God Bless, and Come on Home!
Pat

 

[MontChevalier]

Not at all - that actually sounds more like some of the more liberal forms of Protestantism.

In the Catholic faith, we recognize a variety of writing styles in the Bible. Those that present themselves as historical are, in fact, historical events - Abraham’s covenant with God, Moses bringing the Ten Commandments, the teachings of Jesus, and His crucifixion and resurrection, along with many other things.

Some things are written in an allegorical form in the Bible, and are therefore obviously intended as allegories - which does not make them unimportant to our faith, nor does it make them “not true” - it just means that we need to look beyond the surface for the real meaning behind these things. For example, the story of Adam and Eve in the garden is an allegorical story that tells us something true - which is that our first parents, Adam and Eve (who were real people, and really the ancestors of every human being who has ever lived) did something terrible that brought evil and death into the world Whatever that thing was that they did has been lost to history, so our ancestors in faith created an allegorical story that presents the essential points - that we are created to be obedient to God; that Adam and Eve failed to obey, and that death has come about as a consequence of that.

Certainly not. In our Creed, we state very plainly, “He will come again to judge the living and the dead.” It is also very clear in the Scriptures that the Church is here to prepare the people of the world for His Second Coming, by continuing to teach what He taught, and by giving them the Sacraments of His Grace.

Whether or not we will go flying around on clouds is a matter for speculation, but certainly, Jesus is coming again, and those who are found worthy will go with Him into Heaven, while the remainder will go to Hell.

Oh, wow, yes, that makes much more sense. Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge and your time.

Also, I have an international Bible and when I read Revelations, it feels like the Catholic Church is the beast being spoken of there. Can someone clarify?

I know that when it comes to the Revelations, my favorite verse in Revelations is 19:11-14.
"I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war.12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.

This verse often make me think of several armies like it. The Knights Templar or the Polish Winged Hussars.

But I digress.

 

[manualman]

catholic.com/library/Rapture.asp

Here’s a short critique of the confusing array of protestant end time beliefs compared to the catholic understanding.

When you read Revelation, John is simply speaking about the ancient Roman authorities who were brutally oppressing the Church. The key to understanding the difference is that the ancient secular Rome is the city on seven hills. The Vatican ain’t there. If you’re in ancient Rome, Vatican City is over yonder!

Protestants seem to see prophecy as future telling. But prophecy is most often more about telling the truth about current events than it is future telling. Revelation is no different.

 

[Skeptic92]

Oh, wow, yes, that makes much more sense. Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge and your time.

Also, I have an international Bible and when I read Revelations, it feels like the Catholic Church is the beast being spoken of there. Can someone clarify?

I know that when it comes to the Revelations, my favorite verse in Revelations is 19:11-14.
"I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war.12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.

This verse often make me think of several armies like it. The Knights Templar or the Polish Winged Hussars.

But I digress.

Your taking Revelation out of its historical context, in the time St John wrote the Book of the Apocalypse, Christians were deeply persecuted, many, many martyrs were made, the soil of the known world was soiled by the blood of the martyrs.

However, Apocalyptic Literature is not Prophecy, the armies referred to in Revelation, would be the armies of Rome, and in that time, Vatican Hill (the hill upon which St Peter was buried, and the Vatican now rests) was not part of Rome, it was outside of the City of Rome, same as Golgotha for Jerusalem, we must remember that St John would have been referring to Rome, but not Rome as we know it, the City while still big relativly in its time, was much smaller then it is now, resting upon 7 Hills, not including Vatican hill which was outside the walls of the City of Rome.

The Man in Robes dipped in Blood, was most likely that of Emperor Nero not the Holy Father.

Trust me, you can spend months studying the Book of the Apocalypse, it’s an insanely metaphorical/allegorical book, which has several layers of meaning, just breaking the tip of the Ice is hard, just trying to imagine what the exact meaning of the Book is, is a scholarly task, not one for the laity, i encourage it, but scripture study should be done in groups, it helps us, especially if you have a Priest with you, they generally know scripture like the backs of there hands

 

[Biedrik]

Also, I have an international Bible and when I read Revelations, it feels like the Catholic Church is the beast being spoken of there. Can someone clarify?

What leads you to believe it is the Catholic Church?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Your taking Revelation out of its historical context, in the time St John wrote the Book of the Apocalypse, Christians were deeply persecuted, many, many martyrs were made, the soil of the known world was soiled by the blood of the martyrs.

However, Apocalyptic Literature is not Prophecy, the armies referred to in Revelation, would be the armies of Rome, and in that time, Vatican Hill (the hill upon which St Peter was buried, and the Vatican now rests) was not part of Rome, it was outside of the City of Rome, same as Golgotha for Jerusalem, we must remember that St John would have been referring to Rome, but not Rome as we know it, the City while still big relativly in its time, was much smaller then it is now, resting upon 7 Hills, not including Vatican hill which was outside the walls of the City of Rome.

The Man in Robes dipped in Blood, was most likely that of Emperor Nero not the Holy Father.

Trust me, you can spend months studying the Book of the Apocalypse, it’s an insanely metaphorical/allegorical book, which has several layers of meaning, just breaking the tip of the Ice is hard, just trying to imagine what the exact meaning of the Book is, is a scholarly task, not one for the laity, i encourage it, but scripture study should be done in groups, it helps us, especially if you have a Priest with you, they generally know scripture like the backs of there hands

From the context, one would doubt the man in robes dipped in blood was a reference to Nero.

The Apcalypse is wonderful reading, and it’s puzzling reading. Many, many things have been written about its meaning by erudite and learned and entirely Catholic people. But as you say, there are layers of meaning, and one should never assume he or anyone else has a full command of its meaning, EXCEPT to the extent the Church very definitely says thus and so about it. After all, it is in the Bible only because the Church included it. But that doesn’t mean it’s easy to approach.

So, sure, on one level we might regard the beast as the pagan city of Rome. But does that exhaust its meaning? I doubt very much that it does.

Consider for a moment the part about the armies of the Kings of the East numbering ten thousand times twenty thousand. Never did the armies of Rome ever approach numbers like that. Does that mean, then, that it should be interpreted simply as 'a big army", still referring to the armies of Rome, but hyperbolically? Maybe, but maybe not. When you think about it, there’s only one place on earth that could, or could ever have, mustered an army like that.

But does that mean 1/3 of mankind will be killed by the armies of China? We can’t assume that. But we can’t assume it isn’t possible either.

 

[Crumpy]

Judaism has defined for itself the first five books of the Bible as the Torah – which means instruction.

2 Tim 3:16-17 says all scripture is inspired and is useful for teaching, that is, instruction.

So, Judaism and Christianity are very harmonious on this point of what scripture is for. So, you needlessly tie your brain in a knot if you are worrying about history versus science in Genesis, for example. Even in Genesis, there are two different versions of creation, so you need to accept this on the terms that Genesis is given to us, not on some worries that you hear about or make up yourself.

In Judaism, I’ve read in more than one modern commentary that they have no official interpretation of any verse in the Hebrew Bible. Catholics have only a couple official interpretations (see The New Jerome Biblical Commentary for that story).

Judaism is rather proud of the uncounted numbers of interpretations not as a sign of confusion, but as an indication of the depth of the meaning of God’s instruction.

The Catholic Church holds similarly that there is not a final, single interpretation but that scripture is a constant source of inspiration for us, when the Church considers it, under the protection and promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If you are called to be a Catholic, you need to open your mind to the teachings of the Church and join us in our reverence for the holy Word of God. In general I don’t think you will find the frenzy that seems to exist in Protestant circles about prooftexting and arguing this verse and the next verse. There is a whole area of study in the Church, reflected in this very website, about apologetics – the reasons for our beliefs. You are welcome to get into that as much as you are moved to do.

The Jews have a feast on which they celebrate the receipt of the Torah. It’s too bad the Catholic Church does not put more emphasis on that, as an event. We did recently have a year long observance of the 2000th birthday of St. Paul, where the Church encouraged its members to focus on the gift of his inspiration and writing to the Church.

 

[Skeptic92]

From the context, one would doubt the man in robes dipped in blood was a reference to Nero.

The Apcalypse is wonderful reading, and it’s puzzling reading. Many, many things have been written about its meaning by erudite and learned and entirely Catholic people. But as you say, there are layers of meaning, and one should never assume he or anyone else has a full command of its meaning, EXCEPT to the extent the Church very definitely says thus and so about it. After all, it is in the Bible only because the Church included it. But that doesn’t mean it’s easy to approach.

So, sure, on one level we might regard the beast as the pagan city of Rome. But does that exhaust its meaning? I doubt very much that it does.

Consider for a moment the part about the armies of the Kings of the East numbering ten thousand times twenty thousand. Never did the armies of Rome ever approach numbers like that. Does that mean, then, that it should be interpreted simply as 'a big army", still referring to the armies of Rome, but hyperbolically? Maybe, but maybe not. When you think about it, there’s only one place on earth that could, or could ever have, mustered an army like that.

But does that mean 1/3 of mankind will be killed by the armies of China? We can’t assume that. But we can’t assume it isn’t possible either.

This is how complex the Book of the Apocalypse is, I come here, and state something i was pretty sure of, and it turns out my interpretation may be flawed, we must be careful with Scripture, we should study it, but also fall back onto the writings of the great Scholars we have, from the modern (like His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI) to the very old (one example would be St Thomas Acquinas), as these more learned men, have a better understanding of scripture then we do, especially if they have studied it for most of there life

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is how complex the Book of the Apocalypse is, I come here, and state something i was pretty sure of, and it turns out my interpretation may be flawed, we must be careful with Scripture, we should study it, but also fall back onto the writings of the great Scholars we have, from the modern (like His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI) to the very old (one example would be St Thomas Acquinas), as these more learned men, have a better understanding of scripture then we do, especially if they have studied it for most of there life

There is a lot of wisdom in what your’e saying.

I’m a fairly simple fellow, and not particularly learned. But I know to be awe-struck when I see something awesome. And the writings of these two millenia past are astonishingly full of wisdom and holiness, almost beyond our comprehension.

We think we’re smarter than those who went before us because we drive cars and have TV sets and penicillin. But we’re not. Our “scholars” and 'theologians" now are nothing compared to those previously. If, say, one opens the Summa Theologica or Summa Contra Gentiles, and reads just a little, it becomes quite clear that St. Thomas was learned, not only in the doctrines of the Church and the scriptures, but in the Hebrew writings both ancient and contemporary, in the writings of the Arabic scholars, of the Fathers of the Church and even the pagan philosophers. And not just a little, but thoroughly. Who knows such things now? Who even knows they existed? Who, now, is really familiar with all that wisdom and holiness?

Well, Popes like Pope Benedict are, and when someone like him says something, I would have to be a madman not to listen to him.

And it amuses me not a little to see our contemporary “theology” types going on about how this in the Bible means this, and that means that, and how the Church has misunderstood or misinterpreted something for 2,000 years because THEY just came up with some alternative notion the day before yesterday, and why? Well, because they spun it out of their own fevered brains, that’s why.

It’s all humbling. It really is. There is not a ghost of a chance that I am going to know what, say, St. Agustine or St. Thomas or even Thomas a Kempis or Etienne Gilson knew. And so, if I fall back on what the Church teaches, and accept it, and reject some new slant that some guy came up with three days ago, well, it’s hard for me to feel terribly retrograde about it.****

 

[MontChevalier]

It seems that Catholic.com seems pretty separated when it comes to Revelations.

I read that Rapture article I was handed over. I want to know, does this mean that Jesus Christ won’t be coming on a horse to save the jews from the minions of the Antichrist?

If Revelations really was allegorical, would we know what would be allegorical and what would not?

Oh my God, I’ve been flooded with way too many posts, I need a break. I’ve been reading for over an hour.

-MontChevalier

PS: I am not discouraging people to stop posting. Please continue, until I can recover from reading.

 

[jmcrae]

It seems that Catholic.com seems pretty separated when it comes to Revelations.

I read that Rapture article I was handed over. I want to know, does this mean that Jesus Christ won’t be coming on a horse to save the jews from the minions of the Antichrist?

Jesus obviously has a role for the Jews to play in the unfolding of the salvation of the world, and it’s equally obvious that their role didn’t end at His Crucifixion, since, unlike every other tribe and nation that was around in those days, they are still here. But no - Jesus is only going to be coming once more, and that will be on the Judgement Day, to take the just into Heaven, and send the rest to Hell.

If Revelations really was allegorical, would we know what would be allegorical and what would not?

The whole thing is generally considered to be an allegory about the Mass, the Church and the life hereafter.

 

[Peter_Gabriel]

For example, the story of Adam and Eve in the garden is an allegorical story that tells us something true - which is that our first parents, Adam and Eve (who were real people, and really the ancestors of every human being who has ever lived) did something terrible that brought evil and death into the world Whatever that thing was that they did has been lost to history, so our ancestors in faith created an allegorical story that presents the essential points - that we are created to be obedient to God; that Adam and Eve failed to obey, and that death has come about as a consequence of that.

Just curious, who says that any of the story of Adam and Eve was allegorical? Where are you getting this from?

 

[VexinConfection]

None of what you say is true. I get worried more about some of the ridiculous things Protestants believe - like some feel Mary had more children - some feel John Chapter 6 is allegory when Jesus spoke openly about his Body and Blood being Meat and Drink indeed. The fact is - Protestants would not have the bible were it not for the Catholic Church which remains to this day the only TRUE Authority on what the Bible says.

The Catholic Church was over three hundred years old by the time the New Testament was put under one cover under Pope St Damasus. The protestant churchs would not exist for another 1200 years.

So if you are looking into Catholicism - Know this - Jesus formed one Church not hundreds and only ONE Church can possibly be that Church historically speaking.

The Catholic Church

Mr Burns, you sound full of anger. I’ll pray for you to find peace. Please don’t assume you know the hearts and minds of others. I was raised MS Lutheran. I’m one of those Protestants of which you speak. I beleive everything in the Bible is the word of God and true. The trueth and salvation offered by Christ doesn’t belong to any one group. Instead of anger-perhaps you might pay for pathience and understanding from the Holy Mother. I am.

 

[jmcrae]

Just curious, who says that any of the story of Adam and Eve was allegorical? Where are you getting this from?

Making Senses Out of Scripture by Mark Shea is a comprehensive source that points to a number of other sources, including St. Augustine and St. Jerome. Many of the Early Fathers, especially those most involved in giving us the canon of the Scriptures, saw the story of the Garden as an allegory. They recognized the distinct difference in style from the first chapter of Genesis, which recounts the order of the Creation.

In taking the second chapter of Genesis as allegorical, one is not in any way affirming Darwinism or the theory of evolution. It is simply that, the magic tree and the talking snake stand in for spiritual realities - they are not intended to be understood literalistically.